Posted on 07/30/2017 3:56:21 PM PDT by Carbonsteel
The three new Zumwalt-class destroyers are in trouble. Originally envisioned as a fleet of more nearly three dozen destroyers, and the weapons that justified them, the Zumwalts have faced delays, cuts and staggering cost increases. As the ships teeter on the verge of white elephant status, could they become relevant again by taking on a new role, that of a stealthy ship killer?
The Zumwalt-class destroyers were originally envisioned as a fleet of thirty-two destroyers designed to attack targets far inland with precision-guided howitzer shells. Designed in part to support amphibious landings by the U.S. Marine Corps, the Zumwalts were meant to make up for the lack of big-gun firepower caused by the retirement of the Iowa-class destroyers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
The Littoral Combat Ship is also a disaster of waste.
There are solutions such as the boat we are selling to Saudi Arabia but what is the Navy doing?
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/saudi-arabia-is-buying-the-littoral-combat-ship-the-u-s-1737749488
Iowa class destroyers? The Iowa class were battleships.
Exactly. I quit reading at that point.
Cost per ship, if produced in the original numbers, would not have been so outrageous. But, producing only 3, the cost per ship is not a pretty picture.
But keep in mind these are really experimental platforms. We have rail gun technology now and rail guns need to go on a ship with the ability to produce A LOT of electricity. The Zumwalts can power a small city.
They were built for the rail gun
There are cheaper shells available
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20170723.aspx?comments=Y
but yeah, nearly a million per round, seriously
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/each-round-for-the-uss-zumwalt-costs-800-000-and-the-n-1788765510
Uh-huh. SURE.
Friggin RIDICULOUS.
Iowa class destroyers? Hmmm...
Not sure I need to read anything the author wrote.
Urinalists. Military stuff is, like, hard!
He probably meant the Spruance class battleships.
Real soon, now, along with those particle beam weapons. /s
Who wrote this?
Better question would be "Who edited this?
Iowa Class Destroyers? Seriously?
This is on par with naming every gun a "Glock" regardless what it really is.
All warships are the same in a liberals eyes.
Second, no this things are not new "Pocket Battleships". A waste of money at best. Usless waste of money at worst.
Reminds me of when I was in the Air Force and we wen through a lesson that right before Vietnam, it was explained to pilots asking why their fighters didn't have cannons, that "Because of Nuclear weapons we will never again fight a conventional war".
Then Vietnam and every war since has been nothing but conventional.
When the rubber meets the road in war, nothing backs you better than great artillery. The Navy is almost as bad as the Air Force at overthinking a solution to a non-existent problem.
Check out my new staple-gun, guys..! Bad-as$, huh..?!
My son took a picture of it a month ago. It was wrapped in scaffolding.
The rail gun will be on the LBJ in 2019
The Zumwalt probably should class out as a light cruiser. (Close to 15,000 tons displacement, 6 inch guns (but only 2 of them).
Compare that to a World War II Fletcher class destroyer, displacement just over 2000 tons, or the USS Atlanta, a light cruiser built during World War II with a roughly 12,000 ton displacement, also with 6 inch guns (but 12 of them, plus some 5 inch dp mounts).
Whoa, Kyle, buddy! That's a pretty nice flamingo you're holding there...
Stealthy, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
